Professor Peter Shirlow:

There is a difference between the surveys that come out of Queen's University and our surveys; they are constructed in different ways and have different panels. For example, in our survey, more than 70% of people said they found the protocol and Brexit really complicated. As Professor Phinnemore indicated, in his survey people said they had a familiarity with and knowledge of it. On the point about evidence and data, when you read our reports, you can see that the panels are constructed in different ways. As a result, there is a need to be careful. We did a survey across October, April, May and July. We have been tracking these and other issues.

Even with the election results, our predictions were within the 3.1% margin of error, so we have some confidence in what we are saying.

We are also going out and talking and engaging with people in communities. When we talk to members of the unionist community face to face and point things out to them, they will say that it is not what they knew, heard or understood. That is not unique to unionists. It is a question of leadership, which I think Deputy Richmond referred to, and one of getting and giving evidence and allowing that to happen.

The Deputy mentioned the European Court of Justice. In one of our surveys, 64% of nationalists supported the ECJ compared with 26% of unionists. We are not finding intra-community consensus on every question but clearly the ECJ has got into people's heads through the media and public discourse. It is the idea of something being a bad thing and a good thing. Nationalists say it is a good thing, unionists say it is a bad thing and, therefore, it must be a good or bad thing.

When we asked a question about an independent arbitrator, 55% of unionists and 55% of nationalists supported it. It goes from one question where there is a big division, along orange and green lines, to another solution where we find parity. That is the mood we have to get into, which is the point I think Professor Hayward and Professor Phinnemore made, and what this deal will be and then how we will sell it. That is important.

On the overall context of selling deals, we all have to recognise that relationships have already changed. I am not just talking about party political relationships. Some of us are old enough to remember black and white footage of a young Ian Paisley throwing snowballs at Seán Lemass and Terence O'Neill when they were trying to set up trade relationships across this island. That led to the rise of UVF violence and bombing across the Border, etc. Nobody blinks an eyelid now at North-South economic trade and development. I do not know if this is completely correct but an example of that is Wrightbus, which is now a world leader in hydrogen technology. From what I know - please correct me if I am wrong - the buses are made in Ballymena and the technology came from the South of Ireland. Those are relationships where trade unionists, investors and others worked to build that North-South partnership. The point I am trying to make is that in 1965, the Lemass-O'Neill meeting led to civil breakdown and disorder, while today, nobody bats an eyelid about Wrightbus because they see the benefits of North-South co-operation. What is important is that in any way that this is sold and the energy from either side that goes into this, it has to go back to the question of interdependencies. We are living in a new set of relationships. This is not the politics of 100 years ago. My grandmothers could not vote 100 years ago. There was no digital technology 100 years ago. Our families would not have had high-paid jobs; they would have been on the boat or they would have been travelling about trying to make a living. There was no National Health Service or mass education. Why is some of the politics we have still reflective of 100 years ago when it should be reflective of the points Deputy Richmond made about geopolitical stability? There are new threats emerging. Conventional wars are gone; it is cyber wars now.

If we want to sell anything and we agree that the deal that may emerge is a good deal, then we have to get beyond the binaries of orange and green and nationalist-unionist politics. We have to start getting into the politics of what this protocol will do for the economy. Given that immigrants cannot come unless they earn a certain wage, will Northern Ireland even have the capacity to build its economy if no immigrants are coming? We need to have conversations about interdependence, economic development, skills and productivity. Those are the types of conversations we need. The protocol and Brexit was the opposite conversation. It was about a hard border, a border poll now, never, never, never and no, no, no. The opportunities that still lie within the protocol, if it is agreed, for a unique status for Northern Ireland and its unique interdependencies mean that the politics of persuasion need to develop. We cannot keep going down the road of "You say yes and I say no". Civic society does not get up in the morning and wonder to itself if it is British or Irish. Civic society gets up in the morning and wonders whether it is going to cut deals, save jobs, pay the wage bill and develop the products needed to sell good and services. In many ways, politics has failed in Northern Ireland, whereas civic society is colour blind to green and orange dynamics. It has proved that through Brexit. What is the best deal for Northern Ireland? What is undermining the economy? What can help the economy? That is exactly the type of politics and approach we need here.